Hayles, C S (2010) An examination of decision making in post disaster housing reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(1), pp. 103-122. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the key challenges facing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) during decision making in post disaster housing reconstruction. Design/methodology/approach: An extensive literature review was undertaken to establish the key challenges facing disaster management practitioners. Following this review, practitioners from leading NGOs were asked to discuss their experiences of post disaster housing reconstruction including the issues of hazard risk and appropriate mitigation including increasing vulnerability due to climate change, end-users and stakeholder consultation in planning and design, technological solutions, and constructing the build; as these were identified in the literature as the principal challenges being faced by practitioners in the pursuit of sustainable construction. Findings: The research results presented in this paper provide clear insights into the decision-making practices of these NGOs and establish where improvements need to be made. The results also establish that knowledge management activities need to be more focused to ensure that lessons learnt previously are implemented elsewhere; critical in hazard mitigation and meeting the challenges of increased vulnerability due to climate change. Research limitations/implications: The paper includes recommendations for improved knowledge transfer and dissemination of "lessons learnt" in order to capture knowledge gained on projects. Future research will build on this through a detailed examination of the project management process applied to recently completed case studies. Key intervention points in the life cycle of projects will be identified and anticipated knowledge requirements for each stage mapped. Originality/value: Interviews with practitioners reporting first hand on the challenges they face in the field. Useful for those supporting practitioners through research and development as well as donor organisations as it has been revealed that a lot of issues arise as a result of the way projects are funded.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction works; decision making; disaster management; housing; sustainable development |
| Index terms: | construction work, project management process, non-governmental organization, donor, disaster management, case study, life cycle, vulnerability, practitioner, knowledge transfer, mitigation, dissemination, research and development, methodology, decision-making, housing, knowledge management, climate change, post-disaster housing reconstruction, sustainable construction, interview, literature review, face, sustainable development |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, operations management, psychology, practitioner, value management, climate science, construction type, research dissemination and communication, data collection methods, political science, environmental hazards, sociology, research management, decision analysis, knowledge translation, sustainable construction, financial risk, project management theory and practice, professional development, health safety and environment, research methods, economic development |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Governance, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here